date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Laura
(new)
Feb 08, 2013 09:24AM
Very good blog. And now that I think back, I had feelings for boys and girls as far back as kindergarden. It's hard to describe how I felt. Certainly not sexual desire. It was a feeling of enjoying being near them, enjoying what they were talking about, their personalities, their looks too. A girl in kindergarten can understand finding a boy or girl in class cute without any sexual connotation. It was the joy of spending time with them. So you are right. It is about who you are attracted to.
reply
|
flag
Laura wrote: "Very good blog. And now that I think back, I had feelings for boys and girls as far back as kindergarden. It's hard to describe how I felt. Certainly not sexual desire. It was a feeling of enjoying..."laura you nailed it--what I was trying to say but didn't quite. " It was a feeling of enjoying being near them"
Thanks for reading
As Laura explained her thinking through her characters, I think I will attempt to do the same.This simmering dialogue is frustrating me so. I have lots to say, but alas I can not! (Agh!)
Regardless of identity, sexuality does take on greater significance during adolescence, perhaps more so than at any other time in our lives, but this is true of (virtually) all young people in 'western' societies, and certainly can not be construed as the essence of being gay, any more than it is the essence of being straight, bi, queer, omni, pan, etc. etc. Prior to this, as your characters portray, it is about companionship, similarity, likemindedness and maybe even attraction.
Likewise, in Laura's novel 'Crush', the connection between Jamie and Tammy that forms when they meet, as children, for the first time has nothing whatsoever to do with sexuality (not even on the level of psycho-sexual development), but is metaphysical, spiritual - a connection of souls and minds.
Being 'anything' is all of these things in combination.
A great post. So much to think about...
Larry, I don't think I'd be as mad as you, but I totally see your point. I think the topic is a bit more personal for LGBT because we don't want the freedom to be sexual, we want the freedom to love who we want. I want to be seen as a family, not a gay family, or a non-traditional or queer family, because Mike, 'lil q and I are none of those, we are - a family. My parents don't think of us as gay dads, or gay parents, we're parents. If we define being gay with sexuality and not 'love' [and I use that in the broadest sense of the gender of who we love] then we make our families different - and I don't think we are. For those who do not have a spouse or children, they are not gay brother, sister, son, uncle etc. That is why I 100% agree with. So long as we attached an adjective to us, our lives, our status, our families, we never get to be equal.It took me until I was an adult to fully understand this, but I had a professor in law school who used to preface his sentences with - 'a Lady Lawyer I knew.' I didn't see it as anything, until the person seated next to me thunked her head on the desk [we sat in the back row] and I asked what?? She explained, that as long as dinosaurs like our professor called them 'lady lawyers' it suggested 'lady lawyers' weren't real lawyers or true lawyers. It made sense once she pointed it out and it opened my eyes to what it means to be accepted vs. tolerated. I don't want to be tolerated as a gay family. I want to be accepted a family, a man, a husband, a father, brother, son, uncle, co-worker, whatever. Sure I joke about how it wouldn't be near as fun to be gay without the sexuality part, but truth is, no says sexuality defines straight people. To the rest of the world, they just are who they are without the adjective in front of them. That is why you're right. It is not about sexual identity. Being gay is just who we are.
Damn, you got me to think on a Friday night - I so hate you. I try to only think when they pay me :P
Andy
What an eloquent response (the lawyer shows through) and I totally agree with you--I just want to be me without all the adjectives. There is no gay love or straight love. Love is love. And sex is sex. A family is a family. I think people spend way too much time looking for differences and not enough finding our commonality, our similarities, our basic humaness. (yikes is that even a word?)
Great comments from everyone :)I remember something I heard in my sociology class years ago. I don't remember the name for this "phenomenon," but it refers to the fact that in America, and perhaps many other countries, people "label" everything that isn't heterosexual, young, white and male. When there are no labels, people have the tendency to assume that it fits within that 4 word description. It gets annoying sometimes to hear people insist on saying "that black guy" or "that old guy" or "that gay guy" or "that woman cop."
And sometimes I wonder what it would be like to just describe my book as "a romance" or "an erotic love story" without even mentioning the word "gay." It's like a lot of people say, "Gays don't 'gay' park their cars, and they don't 'gay' marry...they park their cars and they marry." They don't "gay" love, they love. They aren't "gay" parents, they are parents.
There is yet so much hatred in the world, and Andy makes such a great point. It's not the freedom to be sexual that is wanted, it's the freedom to simply be...to be loved, to marry the love of one's life, to have family...
Laura wrote: "Great comments from everyone :)I remember something I heard in my sociology class years ago. I don't remember the name for this "phenomenon," but it refers to the fact that in America, and perhap..."
yes it seems people think these additional descriptors tell you something about the person described when actually they dont. That "Black guy" is he light skinned? Or dark? Does he shave his head? or wear dreadlocks? That "gay guy," is he mean spirited and petty? did he lie about his SAT scores? That "woman cop," was she the first one in her family to go to college? Did she save the life of another officer? These descriptions succeed in only telling you that the person described is NOT heterosexual, young, white and male.
Always love your posts, Larry. My novel Stellarnet Rebel recently won the SFR Galaxy Award for "Best Non-Traditional Romance." Sci-fi is great for exploring our "basic humaness." I can create alien characters with no concept of "gay" or "straight." The Stellarnet Series is about two male aliens and a female human -- and it's about love, attraction and family (along with outer space, politics, blogging, video games, internet, lasers, and the rest of the plot). In describing the award, Heather Massey said, "The author layers interesting social commentary about romance, marriage, and family through the lens of an alien culture. The experience prompted me to question my assumptions about how we define romance both in this subgenre and also in real life." I'm pretty proud of that.
J.L. wrote: "Always love your posts, Larry. My novel Stellarnet Rebel recently won the SFR Galaxy Award for "Best Non-Traditional Romance." Sci-fi is great for exploring our "basic humaness." I can create alien..."J.L.
interesting concept--using aliens to explore "basic humaness." Thanks for writing and congrats on your SFR Galaxy Award!


